Loading...
PC MINS 19920908MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT Commissioner Hayes (Excused) Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Paul Espe, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas and Assistant Planner Donna Jerex. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director Onderdonk advised the Planning Commission that the meeting minutes are now current. Commissioner Alberio stated that he had written a letter thanking the Port of Los Angeles for the Planning Commission/Staff Retreat of August 29, 1992 and requested that a copy be sent to the City Council. chairman Katherman presented a letter to Commissioner Alberio on behalf of the Planning Commission thanking him for the excellent job he did organizing the retreat. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of August 11, 1992: On Page 5, correct Chairman Clark to Commissioner Clark. B. Minutes of August 20, 1992: On Page 8, correct Motion to Adjourn as seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, not Commissioner Alberio. Also on Page 5, correct Commission Clark to Commissioner Clark. C. Minutes of August 25, 1992: No corrections. NOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve Items A., B., and C. of the Consent Calendar as corrected. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Lorenzen abstaining on voting on the minutes of August 20, 1992 since he was not present at that meeting and Commissioner Clark abstaining on voting on the minutes of August 25, 1992 since he was not present at that meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 MOTION: Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to hear New Business after the Consent Calendar. Motion passed 6-0. D. P.C. Resolution No. 92-55; approving Extreme Slope No. 32, Minor Exception Permit No. 446 - Appeal at 6425 Via de Anzar. The Planning Commission determined that the new roof design submitted by the applicant was appropriate, and that it accomplished what the Planning Commission had intended to achieve by their original request that the applicant add a hip roof to each end of the residence. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio, to reconsider condition 4. of Exhibit "All of the draft resolution. Motion passed 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to amend Condition 4. of Exhibit "All of P.C. Resolution No. 92-55 to request that the roof is to be as shown on Option "B" of applicant's plans which were attached to the draft resolution. Motion passed 6-0. Robert W. Ford, 6426 Via de Anzar, stated that since applicant's plans had been significantly changed from what was approved by the Planning Commission on August 25, 1992, the Minor Exception Permit should be continued to a future meeting to allow him adequate time to review and comment on the revised roof design. Chairman Katherman responded that the new plans will have even less impact on Mr. Ford's view than the hip roof originally requested by the Commission. He felt that the revised roof design furthered the spirit of the Commission's previous decision and, therefore, there was no justification for continuing the issue. NEW BUSINESS A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT• City of Rancho Palos Verdes. On August 25, 1992, Commissioner Mowlds requested that Staff agendize an item to amend the Development Code to allow staff to approve minor grading within extreme slope areas. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendment and direct Staff to forward the proposal to the City Council. K • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 In response to Chairman Katherman's question, Planning Administrator Petru advised that public notice to neighbors would not be required for Staff approval of minor grading within an extreme slope. MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to recommend that City Council review the proposed code amendment for Staff approval of minor grading within an extreme slope. Notion passed 6-0. B. PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS LIMITING ON -STREET PARKING & CLOSURE OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO UNDEVELOPED LAND; City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed policy recommendations, as drafted by Vice Chairman Byrd. 1. Limiting On -Street Parking The Commissioners expressed their concern about the ambiguities, legal ramifications, and enforcement costs of the proposed policy to limit on -street parking. John Sharkey, 30320 Ave de Calma and Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, testified against the proposed policy limiting on -street parking stating that everyone had a right to park on the public streets of Rancho Palos Verdes without restriction, that there was no justification for limiting on -street parking since Rancho Palos Verdes did not have a major crime problem, and that there would be significant cost to the City to enforce this policy. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Kowlds, to recommend the policy limiting on -street parking to City council. Notion passed 4-2, with Commissioners Lorenzen and Clark dissenting. Commissioner Clark said that without substantial proof of safety problems, he could not vote to support the policy. 2. Closure of Public Access to Undeveloped Land The Commissioners requested that the ambiguities of the proposed on -street parking policy be clarified, that a financial analysis be done, and that the policy be reviewed with the City Attorney. Director Onderdonk advised that when the Planning Commission recommends a course of action to the City Council, standard 9 C` -A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 11 procedure is that it would be subject to review by the City Attorney. John Sharkey, 30320 Ave del Calma, testified against the proposed policy to close access to public trails when it has been demonstrated that the trail poses a risk to public safety. He stated that maximum access to the coastline is required under the State constitution and the California Coastal Act of 1974 for all residents of the State of California. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that she walked in the areas that would be affected by this policy and that her access would be cut off. She commented that the Department of Parks and Recreation arranges walks in these areas which would be illegal under this proposed policy. Commissioner Alberio stated that he was concerned about the financial impact and the ambiguities of the proposed policy to close public access. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the policy does not close public access. It establishes a policy to close access to a public trail only if there is a problem with public safety. MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner Byrd, to recommend the policy of closure of public access to undeveloped tracts of land to City Council. Motion passed 4-1, with commissioner Clark abstaining and Chairman Katherman dissenting. Commissioner Clark's abstention was based on his desire for more public input. Chairman Katherman stated that he preferred to approach the issue of public access to trails on a case by case basis. Director Onderdonk informed the these policies could be heard by 1992. RECESS AND RECONVENE Commission that the earliest City Council was October 20, The meeting recessed at 8:50 and reconvened at 9:05. CONTINUED BUSINESS NOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to continue Item A., Sign Permit No 584, to the Planning 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 Commission meeting of September 22, 1992, with the understanding that it will heard first on the agenda. Motion passed 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to reorder the agenda to hear Public Hearing, Item C. next. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING C. VARIANCE NO. 343; Warren Sterling and Barbara Marbell, 5863 Ocean Terrace Drive. Requested Action: That the Planning Commission approve the request, subject to conditions, for the construction of a 136 square foot addition, 13 feet 4 inches in height to extend a maximum of two feet over the extreme slope on the southwest side of the property, to be located 20 feet one inch from the side yard property line. The Planning Commission agreed to waive the presentation of the staff report. Barbara Marbell (Applicant), 5863 Ocean Terrace Drive, stated that she had no problem with the conditions requested by Staff. However, Ms. Marbell requested that Condition 7 of Exhibit "A" be deleted since it conflicted with Condition 2 of Exhibit "A". MOTION: Commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to approve Variance No. 343, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", with the removal of Condition 7. Motion passed 6-0. Chairman Katherman advised that the resolution would be signed that evening and that there is a 15 day appeal period. A. SERVICE STATION ORDINANCE; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. Requested Action: Review a proposed ordinance which would amend the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to allow the City to regulate the conversion of gasoline service stations to other uses. Under the draft ordinance, a gasoline station owner in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes may convert a service station to another use only after applying for and receiving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the Planning Commission. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 Associate Planner Rojas presented the staff report stating that in an effort to discourage the conversion of service stations to other uses, the City Council directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance regulating the conversion of gasoline service stations in the City to other uses. The City Council sent the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rojas advised that there is a trend toward conversion of service stations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula to non -service station uses, resulting in an increasing unavailability of essential automotive services. Staff recommended that the City Council not adopt the proposed ordinance and instead recommended that the City initiate a General Plan Amendment/Zone Change to ensure that all service stations in the City are legal uses in conformance with the City's Zoning/General Plan. This would more easily allow service stations to expand or modernize their facilities, since present Code requirements do not allow any expansion of a non -conforming use. Jeff Wilson, Western States Petroleum Association, 2600 Alma Avenue, Manhattan Beach, spoke against the ordinance stating that It would prevent service station owners from converting their property to other than a conventional service station with automotive service bays. He believes that the free market has served the motoring public well and that there will be no lack of automotive service since it will be provided by the specialty automobile repair service shops such as Jiffy Lube, Tune -Up Master, etc. Mr. Wilson also said that modern service stations are faster and more convenient, which is what consumers want, and also keep gas prices down. The Commissioners stated their concerns about the lack of automobile repair services on the peninsula if gas stations are converted to modern gas -only stations, and did not think there should be Jiffy -Lubes, etc. allowed on the peninsula. They did not think the people of Rancho Palos wanted gas stations with convenience stores. Mr. Wilson responded that because of the high cost of technical equipment to service fuel injection, computer chips, etc., it is very difficult for traditional service stations to keep and train operators for that type of service. Steven J. Saporito, 28004 Ridgebluff Court, Charles Webster, 23437 Shadycroft Avenue, Torrance, and Jim Juneau, 5656 Crest 21 -0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 • Road, all owners of service stations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula with auto repair shops, testified against the proposed ordinance. They approved of the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change proposed by Staff since it will make it easier to obtain financing and to modernize and expand. They said there was demand on the peninsula for full-service stations. They also stated that their auto repair businesses are profitable and they want to stay on the peninsula. They also provide jobs for local residents. Roger Beach, President and CEO of Unocal Corporation, 16 San Clemente, stated that he was against the proposed ordinance and that he agreed with Staff's recommendation to change the zoning instead. Mr. Beach said that many businesses were closing and he thought that the Planning Commission was singling out a particular industry. He thought there would be sufficient stations on the peninsula for gas service and informed the Commission that Unocal will have a gas station at every exit of the peninsula. He stated that the City will have to spend a lot of money to prove who is making a fair return on their money. He stated that the market place should dictate which businesses are closed and which are not. In response to Commissioner Alberio's questions, Mr. Beach said that three of the Unocal service stations at the exits of the peninsula will have full service with auto repair shops. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 vallon Drive, Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, and John Sharkey, 30320 Ave de Calma, testified against the proposed ordinance, stating that they thought it was over regulation, that people now go off the peninsula for gas and auto repair anyway, and that the free market should be allowed to determine if the service stations go to self service and eliminate the auto repair shops. Ms. Larue informed the Planning Commission that the service station on Crest Road is the only toxic waste site in Rancho Palos Verdes. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. Chairman Katherman stated that he did not want to see the City put in the position to determine what is profitable and what is not and, therefore, was against the proposed ordinance. The Commissioners agreed that they wanted to accommodate the continuance of auto service in the community by making the zoning regulations as easy as possible for service stations to expand and upgrade. Chairman Katherman suggested that the Conditional 7 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 Use Permit process could be used to the City wants and to not allow the does not want, such as convenience pump booths. limit the type of services type of services the City markets, liquor sales, and gas NOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to recommend that the City Council 1) not adopt the proposed ordinance, 2) initiate a General Plan Amendment/Zone Change to ensure that all service stations in the City are,legal uses in conformance with the City's Zoning/General Plan and 3) amend the Development Code to grant Conditional Use Permits to those existing service stations that are already located in a commercial zoning district. Motion passed 6-0. B. VARIANCE NO. 333; Dr. and Mrs. Neal, 2810 Colt Road. Applicants have withdrawn their request and are planning to file a Minor Exception Permit. Therefore, no action was necessary. CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONTINUED) B. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 741 - APPEAL, VARIANCE NO. 324; Mr. and Mrs. Deilman, 28220 Golden Meadow Drive. MOTION: Commissioner Nowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to waive the presentation of the staff report. Motion passed 6-0. Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that it continues to be Staff's opinion that the project would cause cumulative view impairment from the properties at 7017 and 7015 Cherty Drive. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's decision to deny the proposed second story addition. Howard Dielmann (Applicant), 28220 Golden Meadow Drive, stated that he did not object to Staff's conditions, except for Condition F, which requested that there be no windows on the eastern elevation of the second story. Fred Van Kirk, 1428 Via castilla,,Palos Verdes Estates, who is the owner of 7025 Cherty Drive, stated that his view will be impaired by this addition. Mr. Van Kirk said that a second story addition is not appropriate for the neighborhood and that the Planning Commission would have difficulty turning down requests for other second story additions if this one is approved. 8 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 • NOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner Mowlds, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the windows on the east side would be below the level of the deck of the house located behind the applicant's property. Assistant Planner de Freitas responded that he didn't know, but the reason Staff had asked for no windows was to ensure the privacy of that neighbor. MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve the appeal of Height Variation No. 741, thereby approving Height Variation, subject to the conditions recommended by Staff, except Condition F, which is to be deleted. Notion passed 5-1, with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Commissioner Alberio stated that he could not support the project since there would be a significant cumulative impact if houses across the street were allowed to build second story additions. He said the applicant could use the room in the back of the property to expand on the first level. Chairman Katherman stated the Planning Commission will decide projects on a case-by-case basis, and other properties in neighborhood cannot use this case as a precedent. D. VARIANCE NO. 342; Erwin and Renata Heindl, 40 Santa Catalina Drive. Applicant has requested a 200 open space reduction within the front yard setback for driveway and parking areas, and for pilasters in the front yard setback exceeding the 4211 height limitation. This variance application for after -the -fact approval resulted from a code enforcement complaint The Planning Commission agreed to waive presentation of the staff report. Erwin Heindl (Applicant), 40 Santa Catalina, stated that his building contractor had assured him that everything was in compliance with City regulations. He said there were many pilaster higher and driveways bigger than his in the Island View Development. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he had not seen any bigger houses or driveways in the neighborhood, and asked if Mr. Heindl knew where they were located. Mr. Heindl said he did not have any addresses. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 0 Barbara Wells, Island View Homeowners Association, SantaBarbara Drive and Anita Cole, 44 Santa Catalina Drive, stated that the applicant's property is not in compliance with the Island View CC&Rs and is not in harmony with the neighborhood. They said that he has built without the Homeowner Association's approval, and has misrepresented what he was going to build. The applicant has not submitted any plans to the Homeowners Association. Ms. Wells informed the Commission that much of the hardscape was put in by the applicants themselves. They asked the Planning Commission to deny applicant's request for a variance because of the excessive lot coverage. Commissioner Byrd asked if they have had similar disagreements with other homeowners. Ms. Wells replied that the pilasters are not unique to the Heindls, but that the problem was with the excessive lot coverage and lack of landscaping in the front yard. Commissioner Alberio stated that some of the pilasters are in a public right-of-way. Director Onderdonk informed the Planning Commission that there is an application pending to vacate the street, which would eliminate the encroachment into the public right-of-way. He went on to explain that it is not the staff's practice to pursue code enforcement cases while a permit is pending which could legalize the violation. MOTION: Commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. NOTION: commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to deny the request for Variance No. 342 and to instruct the applicants to meet the City's Code requirements for open space and maximum height of structures within the front yard setback. Notion passed 6-0. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner Mowlds, to have Staff request that the Department of Public Works investigate the pilasters located on applicant's property within the public easement and take the necessary action to have them removed. Motion passed 5-1, with Chairman Katherman dissenting. Commissioner Alberio requested that Staff confirm that applicant has the proper permits for all the structures on his property, and commissioner Mowlds requested that the permits be reviewed to ensure that the structures are where they are supposed to be. 1E PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 Vice Chairman Byrd requested a report from Staff as to the direction from the Public Works Department at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Katherman asked Staff to prepare a resolution for the next Planning Commission meeting, and advised the applicant that there would be a 15 day appeal period after the resolution is signed. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 171• Eugene and Virginia Muntean (for Vessel Assist Association of America, Inc.), 30057 Matisse. Staff recommended that applicant be allowed to install a 191 antenna for commercial purposes, subject to conditions. Planning Commission agreed to waive presentation of the staff report. David La Montagne (Applicant), President, Vessel Assist Association of America, Inc., 1012 Brioso Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that he would have no problem complying with the conditions set forth by the Staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. La Montagne explained that he had installed the antenna without Planning Commission approval because he thought the project would be before the Planning Commission by the end of July. He also stated that he thought the Planning Commission could better review and assess any impacts of the project now that the antenna was installed. In response to Commissioner Alberio's question, Mr. La Montagne informed the Planning Commission that the only equipment other than the antenna is a small box under the house which is hooked up to the phone lines. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if the antenna will pick up television frequencies, and commissioner Clark asked if there had been problems with disturbances of residential electronics. Associate Planner Silverman responded that the FCC said there should be no interference, and that the six month trial period would give staff the opportunity to review any complaints about interference. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the FCC would be inspecting the facility for a radiation pattern. Mr. La Montagne answered that they do not routinely inspect unless there are complaint letters. 11 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 • He has asked them to come out and they haven't responded as yet. Also, the radiation pattern would be directed outward, away from the adjacent residences. Commissioner Clark asked that, since this is a commercial enterprise, is the City going to gain some revenue and Commissioner Alberio asked if the applicant had a City business license. Associate Planner Silverman answered that Staff is requiring that the applicant obtain a business license as a condition of approval. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commission Mowlds to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve Staff's recommendation to allow the installation of a 19 foot antenna for commercial purposes for a trial period of six months. Approval is subject to conditions as outlined in staff report, and with additional conditions that applicant shall pay a penalty fee as determined by Staff prior to the Planning Commission signing of the Resolution, the applicant shall obtain a City business license, and the applicant shall establish a trust deposit to pay City for the mailing of an initial notice and a second notice to the neighborhood before any extension of the six month trial period. All conditions of approval, except the second notice, are to be met before the applicant will be allowed to begin transmitting. Motion passed 6-0. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that a letter had appeared in the Peninsula Business Journal on June 1992, regarding the Hon -Zuckerman project which contained misinform- mation which she thought the Planning Commission should be aware. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to adjourn to the Planning Commission meeting of September 220 1992. Motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Mowlds left the meeting before the adjournment vote. Meeting was duly adjourned at 1:05 a.m. W